2 Answers
2

You are going to take a hit financially whenever you buy or sell lenses, so it is best to work with what you have until you can afford what you really want.

Neither of those options seem to be significantly better than what you have so all you are doing is trading cheap lenses. If the goal is to get a longer range, then a good solution might be to get a Nikon Teleconverter. The Nikon teleconverter does not support the 55-200 though, so another option is to go with a Kenko 1.4X Teleconverter.

The benefit of going that route is that it will allow your current lens to be more versatile, and if you later want to get a higher quality lens (like a 70-200) you can still use the teleconverter.

Only you can determine if it is a good move. If you're a professional the cost should be factored into the business decisions and expensed/written off as appropriate. If you're an amateur where you're using discretionary funds then it's an easier choice.

You certainly won't get much money from a kit lens and they are very plentiful. But there are people out there who would buy it. So I think you shouldn't consider how much money you get from that lens in the decision to get a new one. If you're going to update, I would recommend first looking at the Nikon 55-300. It is an inexpensive way of getting to 300mm with good quality. Or go with the 70-300 VR which has a better reputation than the lenses you mentioned and the 55-300.

Of course, these are the lower-cost options. But the difference between 200 and 300 isn't always as big as you think. If you're looking into birding/wildlife or such then you'll get a lot more out of learning how to approach your subjects better and being closer than simply having a longer lens.